Anti-Establishment forces throughout the world are currently suffering from strategy starvation. The number of viable strategies for opposing the Establishment is being systematically reduced. Old strategies, such as participation in elections or certain forms of protest, have been rendered unworkable. The immediate task facing those who wish to oppose the New World Order (NWO), therefore, is to generate alternative strategies and implement them before they can be neutralized.
    We can distinguish between two kinds of strategy. On the one hand there are the destructive or ‘attacking’ strategies -- strategies that seek to wrest power from the Establishment. These are primarily the traditional strategies of participation in elections, of infiltrating and subverting trade unions and the media, and of revolutionary violence. They are characterized by attempts to take power.
    On the other hand there is a different class of strategy -- the constructive strategies. These seek to build -- to construct alternative structures. They include resource acquisition, alliance formation and, above all, community building. They are characterized by attempts to create power.
    Of course the distinction is an oversimplification. Constructive strategies open up new opportunities for the use of ‘attacking’ strategies, for example (‘community building’ can change into a strategy of ‘capturing territory’). Conversely, it has frequently been argued that destruction can be a form of creation. Nevertheless, the principal argument of this article is that the traditional destructive strategies have been blocked to those who seek a genuine alternative to the politics of the Establishment and that there is thus a case for a movement toward constructive strategies.

The old, destructive strategies
Elections
It is almost unknown for any country to move from a pro-NWO regime to an anti-NWO regime by democratic means -- certainly not in recent decades. Given the frequency of elections in the world this is certainly some ‘coincidence’.
    Most pro-NWO regimes consist of two-party systems, where both parties advocate similar or identical policies that do not conflict with NWO worldviews, or, alternatively, multi-party coalitions that amount to the same thing. The similarity of the two parties/coalitions in such regimes makes them just as immune to movement in new directions as were the one-party systems of Soviet days. The difference between an entrenched two-party system with both parties advocating essentially the same things, and a one-party system, which perhaps allows some scope for debate within given parameters, is not great.
    Various mechanisms are used to prevent anti-system organizations from gaining significant power by democratic means. These vary from country to country but are principally:

1. Controlling access to the mass media. It is only possible to win important elections if you have sustained and significant exposure in the mass media. By limiting such access to the pro-Establishment parties, it is ensured that nobody else can participate meaningfully in the electoral process. Such control happens in two ways. First, state-run broadcasters, such as the BBC in the United Kingdom, only allow significant access to ‘the main’ (i.e. pro-NWO) parties. This leads to a catch-22 situation that maintains the status quo: in order to become a ‘main’ party you need significant media access but in order to get such access you must be a ‘main’ party already! Moreover, censorship codes such as the (possibly unlawful) ‘taste-and-decency’ policy of the BBC are also used as excuses by media bosses to deny media access to anti-Establishment organizations that bother them.¹ Second, the supposedly ‘free’ market system, so much beloved by the pro-NWO parties, ensures that vast amounts of capital must be accumulated in order to purchase mass media outlets such as mass-circulation newspapers and independent radio stations. The holders of such vast sums of capital in the two-party ‘democracies’ tend to be strongly pro-system -- one has to operate extremely effectively within the system in order to accumulate such capital. Indeed, were these people not pro-system then they would doubtless suffer all sorts of difficulties with advertisers, unions, employees and suppliers. Naturally, pro-system owners lead to pro-system editorial lines and pro-system bias. This excludes significant media access for anti-system parties.

2. Rigging the electoral system itself. The electoral systems in the pro-NWO countries are rarely simple proportional systems where the number of representatives, and hence the leadership, directly reflects the proportion of votes cast for every party participating. Instead there are all sorts of tricks that ensure that only the ‘main’ (i.e. pro-NWO) parties can win. In Britain, for example, the elaborate ‘first-past-the post’ electoral system gives an overwhelming advantage to pro-NWO parties because the votes for smaller parties are simply ‘wasted’.² This effect is enhanced by the existence of rules concerning deposits that must be paid and numbers of signatures that must be collected before a constituency can be contested, and the number of constituencies that must be contested before there is an entitlement to even a small television election broadcast. If anti-NWO parties manage to surmount even these barriers the Establishment responds by raising the barriers -- it increases the amount required as a deposit and it increases the number of seats that must be contested to receive an election broadcast (this has happened in Britain). If a given electoral system produces the ‘wrong’ sort of results, change the system (as will happen in France)!³ In America the ‘electoral college’ system is so thoroughly rigged and so utterly divorced from any semblance of proportionality that it is possible for a president to be elected even though more people voted for his opponent (as was the case with George W. Bush).

3. Infiltration and disruption. It has long been recognized that most of the smaller political parties in many European countries are very heavily infiltrated by the security forces.⁴ Such infiltration gives them the ability to cause all sorts of havoc within institutions that oppose the Establishment. The other phenomenon that will not have failed to escape the attention of anyone working in a formal anti-Establishment political organization is the tendency for mail to ‘go missing’ before it reaches its intended destination. This inevitably leads to the suspicion that the security services are at work, disrupting communications and gathering information from the mail that they have intercepted.

4. Co-option. This is the wholesale appropriation of a cause, organization or movement by the Establishment. An example might be the hijacking Britain’s Labour Party, once a socialist party, by those who can easily make common cause with George W. Bush.

5. Identity theft. Note that the Russian Communist leader, Zyuganov, has anticipated that there will be attempts to confuse the electorate by setting up ‘dummy’ communist parties ahead of the next elections in that country.

6. Making it impossible to campaign. This is principally done by passing laws that make it very difficult to protest freely (the British Public Order Act being a case in point), or by apparently unlawful arrests by police officers (such as the mass arrests of protestors outside the G7 finance ministers’ meeting in the US on 27 September) or by intimidating people from expressing certain views at their places of work (a favourite method of repressing nationalism in Britain).

7. State financing of political parties, but writing the rules in such a way that only certain parties are entitled to the money. This was a Zimbabwean trick. However, it appears that it might be implemented in Britain in the near future.

8. Outright fraud. We have seen examples in Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe and Pakistan recently. When all else fails, if the system can be rigged then it will be rigged.

9. As a really last resort, inconvenient political parties can simply be banned. The fate of the Basque nationalists exemplifies this.
 

Terrorism, criminality and violence
The revolutionary strategies of the nineteenth century have been largely blocked in the twenty-first century, at least in the core Establishment territories of North America and Europe. The Establishment has phenomenal facilities for the interception of communications. Electronic communications such as those by e-mail or telephone can be intercepted by listening facilities such as that at Menwith Hill, whereas small anti-system political parties often complain of their ordinary mail mysteriously going astray. The streets of the cities in the core territories bristle with CCTV cameras. The ability of the state to intercept such activities at the planning stage and to apprehend those who engage in such activities has never been greater.
     State infiltration of anti-system political parties of both the so-called ‘Right’ (in Britain, the BNP, NF and even UKIP) and the so-called ‘Left’ (the peace movement, the ‘anti-fascist’ movement) is notorious. At best, agents simply join these organizations and feed information back to their masters, or liaise with politicians or journalists to acquire information. They also promote the divide-and-rule principle, splitting organizations with endless disputes, effectively neutralizing them. At worst, they appear to act as agents provocateur, encouraging supporters to break the law so that they are arrested and neutralized. Those who advocate terrorism, criminality and violence are thus sitting ducks for such agents. Not only that but most experienced participants in anti-Establishment politics are now familiar enough with the realities of the situation to recognize that anyone who does advocate terrorism, criminality and violence in the core territories is probably either (a) dangerously naive or (b) a policeman or other state agent.
    In the peripheral territories, of course, it’s another story entirely. Armed struggles do occur here, sometimes with signs of success -- the Maoists in Nepal are just one example that comes to mind, although the loss of life there has been horrendous. Nevertheless, any tangible support for such armed struggle from those of us resident in the core Establishment territories (Europe and North America) would bring swift retribution from the ever-watching agents of the state in those territories. It is simply not an option.
 

Other ‘destructive’ strategies
Numerous other ‘destructive’ or ‘attacking’ strategies have been tried over the years. The politicization of trade unions was a favourite with the so-called ‘Left’ but was neutralized with the decimation of the trade union movement by Reagan in the US and Thatcher in Britain. The decline of the trade-union movement has reduced the potency of mass demonstrations and strikes in many of the core countries. The 1986 Public Order Act in Britain makes it possible for the authorities to act against virtually any other strategy directly aimed at wresting power from those who have it. Americans still have a greater degree of freedom than Europeans in this regard.
 

Constructive strategies
The notion of constructive strategies might seem, at first, like something of a ‘cop out’ -- a sort of retreat from serious political activity. This illusion is fortunate because it means that the forces of the NWO tend to underestimate the potential of such strategies and leave them unblocked. It is unfortunate only insofar as the opponents of the NWO also tend to underestimate the potential of constructive strategies.
 Politics is a game of resources. Its aim is to control sufficient resources to achieve one’s political objectives. Destructive strategies have worked because they have provided channels through which people could capture resources held by opponents. Nevertheless, there are ways of controlling resources other than competing for them in competitions that are skewed to one’s disadvantage. Now that the destructive strategies have been rendered useless the time has come to look at these alternative approaches.
    How many resources you need to control, what sort of resources they need to be, and how firmly they need to be controlled, depends entirely on one’s political objectives. Grandiose objectives require firm control of many difficult-to-acquire resources. Lesser objectives, however, can be achieved more easily.
    A myth engendered by the ‘democratic’ mindset is that it is necessary and sufficient to obtain state power, or at the very least a number of elected representatives, in order to achieve political objectives. This is not the case. Local political objectives can be achieved by just a handful of activists making a nuisance of themselves -- successful ‘not in my back yard’ campaigns exemplify this. On the other hand, vast amounts of time and energy could be utilized fighting against the odds to have a few local councillors elected (whose powers turn out to be negligible) whereas that same time and energy could be much more profitably deployed elsewhere. Even if one succeeds in gaining state power, the powers of states nowadays are very restricted, both by globalizing forces and by local considerations.
    Constructive strategies can be pursued using a step-by-step approach. You can examine the resources already at your disposal and consider how they might best be deployed to capture further resources, which might then be used to capture further resources, and so forth until the desired political objectives have been achieved.
    The following are some examples of constructive strategies that can be pursued:

1. Community building. By this I mean the creation of communities with the maximum possible degree of independence from the NWO. There are many different ideas about how this might be achieved. Some, such as Kropotkin, have urged the creation of urban communities.⁵ My own view is that, whereas much depends on circumstances, such communities would probably need to be considerably larger than villages and would need to be geographically isolated so that they might be as free as possible from the malign influence of the outside world. Could community building work? The answer is that it is working, although not yet in a form that has presented a clear and sustainable alternative to the existing world order. Anarchistic communes have been in existence for centuries. Quite sizeable communities representing interest groups of different kinds exist, with varying degrees of autonomy, even today -- examples being the Mennonite communities in Paraguay and the Afrikaner community in Orania, South Africa. Nobody is trying to crush these communities. They do their own thing and, so long as they don’t bother anyone, they’re left in peace. Their existence refutes the notion that the Establishment will automatically attempt to co-opt or destroy any attempts to create independent or quasi-independent communities. National-anarchist communities could work along similar lines, going out of their way not to attract trouble but, in contrast to the communities mentioned above, resolutely turning their backs on the outside world. To be viable these communities should (a) be of sufficient size to be self-sustaining, (b) have sufficient skills to be self-sustaining, (c) command sufficient resources to be self-sustaining, (d) operate screening systems to ensure that unsuitable people are excluded, (d) have internal political systems that are not programmed to self-destruct, (e) have an ideology of isolation from and opposition to the NWO, and (f) manage their affairs in such a way that they do not provoke attacks from the forces of the NWO.

2. Alliance building. Dogmatism is rife among anti-Establishment groups. They spend large amounts of time and resources fighting each other rather than fighting the Establishment. This is particularly true of supposed right/left ‘conflicts’. Such groups are frequently more concerned with spreading the ‘true faith’ (in whatever form they perceive it) than in taking steps to give effect to their ideals. What is now needed is a new brand of non-dogmatic anti-Establishment activist. Such an activist will seek out common ground with other anti-Establishment activists while downplaying differences and thus a broad front of resistance will arise. There will never be anything like total agreement about anything among anti-Establishment activists and it would be foolhardy to pretend otherwise. However, it is possible for those who sincerely oppose the System to hold their own particular beliefs while simultaneously seeking out opportunities for collaboration with activists who hold different beliefs but nevertheless satisfy the two crucial criteria of (a) being non-dogmatic enough for cooperation, and (b) being sufficiently committed to anti-Establishment activism to make an alliance worthwhile. It may even be possible to build tactical alliances with dogmatists on extremely specific issues.

3. Resource acquisition. A resource is anything that might be used strategically to attain political goals. Human resources are people -- with the skills and commitment that they bring. Clearly the emphasis here would be on recruiting quality rather than quantity as the aim is not to win elections and form mass organizations but rather to build communities and alliances. Particularly important attributes to seek out are (a) activism, (b) non-dogmatism, (c) commitment to fighting the Establishment, and (d) usable skills. Financial resources are essential because, in a world of capital, money is power. Techniques for cash generation need to be urgently considered and put into practice. Intelligence and propaganda resources are also important. Alliances and communities are themselves resources that can be used to attain further goals.

What is envisaged here is a completely different type of political activity. While some of the older strategies, such as electioneering or subversion, might still play a minor role at the periphery of the strategy, they are largely replaced by activities such as networking, propaganda (but targeted at useful people rather than the general community), business ventures, preparation for community building, theoretical development, and negotiation with potential allies. When certain critical levels of support and resources have been reached, one would then be in a position to take the step of forming actual, physical communities.